deliteful
|
posted on October 22, 2001 08:32:34 AM new
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_36.shtml
Jess
|
uaru
|
posted on October 22, 2001 08:56:32 AM new
I've got a question about Clinton, not Bill but Hillary. What the hell cause the reception she got at the "Concert For New York" this weekend? The crowd wasn't pleased to see her at all, lots of boos and jeers.
[ edited by uaru on Oct 22, 2001 08:57 AM ]
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:01:28 AM new
If you lived in New York you might know why. A bigger interloper/ political prostitute there isn't.
Which begs the question; who voted for her?
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:03:19 AM new
Let's put it this way.
The fact the she 'discovered' on the campaing trail that she was a lifelong Yankee fan and also is a Jew didn't endear her to many New Yorkers who weren't born yesterday.
That stuff wasn't the problem but it is symptomatic of the problem.
|
BittyBug
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:10:26 AM new
James...
me, for one. I voted for Hilary Clinton.
She is no better at looking for photo-ops than any male polititian. She has strong points and weak points, good and bad. Hilary is not evil personified any more than you or I are.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:12:34 AM new
Of course she's not evil personified.
|
uaru
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:12:49 AM new
One thing is clear, the audience at that concert weren't the bulk of her support. They obviously could have done without her appearance.
|
Hjw
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:16:21 AM new
deliteful
You have really outdone yourself this morning! First, on another thread, a trashy picture (deleted) and now a trashy article from a trashy newspaper...which everyone here seems to see as credible.
Amazing!
Helen
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:18:33 AM new
Helen, no one here has even indicated that they read the article, let alone commented on it.
Also, the thread title "This Stinks!!!!!" indicates to me that Deliteful does not personally approve of the article linked, on the contrary.
So whatsamatter?
|
BittyBug
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:21:32 AM new
I read the article.
I don't know what the thread originator meant.
It is definately a biased article and does not deserve to be taken as Truth.
|
RoseBids25cents
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:21:35 AM new
Thanks for saying that James.. saves me the trouble
Rosie
*There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:24:13 AM new
Of course, the article is not only ludicrous it is as offensive as any other attempts to link 9/11 with something we did and to thereby justify it.
|
Hjw
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:35:10 AM new
In my opinion, just to provide a link to this article "stinks."
And I am surprised that anyone would reply to a thread without reading any more that the title, "This stinks".
Helen
I'm out.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:40:06 AM new
Awww.
|
krs
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:41:40 AM new
"ludicrous it is as offensive as any other attempts to link 9/11 with something we did and to thereby justify it"
Looking for a fight, James? Nevermind that article--follow the links from it and really get pissed.
|
uaru
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:51:38 AM new
Boy, the when the shoe is on the other foot it seems some can really be indignant. The usual response to many obscure and heavily biased articles has always been, "Golly gee, thanks for sharing that informative article." 
|
monkeysuit
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:53:10 AM new
This has got to be a satire paper.
The Onion does it much better, IMO.
Robin
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:55:14 AM new
Boy, the when the shoe is on the other foot it seems some can really be indignant. The usual response to many obscure and heavily biased articles has always been, "Golly gee, thanks for sharing that informative article."
LMAO!
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 09:58:49 AM new
follow the links from it and really get pissed
Hmm. There's this one guy who quotes Pope Urban's proclamation calling for the first crusade to buttress his point.
|
RoseBids25cents
|
posted on October 22, 2001 10:00:45 AM new
I just don't know where the idea came from that posters were thinking it was credible? From what I see, no mention had been made regarding the article at all. But maybe I missed it. Lately these boards have seemed so choppy and disjointed. Or is it just me?
It probably is just me..
Rosie
*There is no conclusive evidence that life is serious*
|
krs
|
posted on October 22, 2001 10:06:37 AM new
uaru, do you mind my refering to you as 'cheney'?
Who's indignant?
|
Femme
|
posted on October 22, 2001 10:32:46 AM new
Of course, the article is not only ludicrous it is as offensive as any other attempts to link 9/11 with something we did and to thereby justify it.
Here's one for you, James...
Not "we"...but the media.
My husband was talking to a group of men about the 9/11 disasters One of those men, who is probably in his 70s, volunteered his thoughts.
According to this man's skewed thinking, planes 2,3 & 4 would not have happened had the media not immediately been on the scene to inform the world about the first plane flying into the WTC.
It took me awhile to pick my jaw up off the floor when my husband relayed this to me.
You can't make this stuff up, folks. Even Hollywood doesn't have this kind of imagination.
ubb
[ edited by Femme on Oct 22, 2001 10:35 AM ]
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on October 22, 2001 10:42:13 AM new
Everyone loves [to laugh at] a good conspiracy theorist.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Oct 22, 2001 10:42 AM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on October 22, 2001 10:49:36 AM new
Okay...I read it. Looks like one person writing his 'personal opinions' about all those issues.
I believe there are a lot of people who would agree with what the Rev. said.....not here, of course.
|
Hjw
|
posted on October 22, 2001 04:19:20 PM new
Deliteful and James and Everybody,
I'm sorry...Just had a day from hell...
Helen
|
